A field test of the audibility of urban versus rural songs in mountain chickadees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anthropogenic noise can mask avian vocalizations, and several urban‐dwelling species adjust frequency or amplitude of vocalizations in ways that appear to compensate for increased noise levels. Playback studies have investigated whether receivers differentiate between signals produced by rural and urban males, but it is difficult to determine whether differential response to stimulus reflects differences in audibility versus perceived differences in male signals/condition that result from urban settlement. Here, we performed paired‐playback trials to determine whether mountain chickadees ( Poecile gambeli ) differentiate urban versus rural songs when both stimuli were broadcast within noise. For each playback, stimuli were played in short bouts starting at a low signal‐to‐noise ratio and increasing in relative amplitude with each successive bout. If the primary function of adjusted urban songs is propagation in noise, we hypothesized that focal males would respond sooner to urban versus rural playbacks (detect at lower signal‐to‐noise ratios). If urban songs solely encode information about the male's condition (such as increased aggression), then we predicted only a differential aggressive response to playbacks once detected. If urban songs both increase propagation and embed information on male condition, we predicted a combination of both response types. We found no difference in latency to first response in urban versus rural songs, but some evidence for differential aggression to playback dependent on both stimulus type (urban vs. rural) and local ambient noise levels; focal males in noisy (urban) sites responded aggressively to both stimulus types, whereas focal males in quiet (rural) sites responded more aggressively to urban than to rural stimuli. This context‐dependent discrimination may be the result of increased aggression in urban habitats, improved communication in noisy habitats by urban signallers and receivers, or some combination of the two.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".